linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: Enable MCQ support for UFS controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0fb24c50-1f4f-4dd8-a3c7-4c84fd0bb7c1@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 20:20:29 +0530
From: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam
	<mani@...nel.org>
CC: Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konradybcio@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: Enable MCQ support for
 UFS controller



On 9/1/2025 1:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/09/2025 06:15, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand why you combine DTS patch into UFS patchset. This
>>>>> creates impression of dependent work, which would be a trouble for merging.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What trouble? Even if the DTS depends on the driver/bindings change, can't it
>>>> still go through a different tree for the same cycle? It happened previously as
>>>
>>> It all depends on sort of dependency.
>>>
>>>> well, unless the rule changed now.
>>>
>>> No, the point is that there is absolutely nothing relevant between the
>>> DTS and drivers here. Combining unrelated patches, completely different
>>> ones, targeting different subsystems into one patchset was always a
>>> mistake. This makes only life of maintainers more difficult, for no gain.
>>>
>>
>> Ok. Since patch 2 is just a refactoring, it should not be required for enabling
>> MCQ. But it is not clear if that is the case.
>>
>> @Ram/Nitin: Please confirm if MCQ can be enabled without patch 2. If yes, then
>> post the DTS separately, otherwise, you need to rewrite the commit message of
>> patch 2 to state it explicitly.
> 
> Dependency of DTS on driver would be another issue and in any case must
> be clearly documented, not implicit via patch order.

Hi Krzysztof/Mani,

We've verified that the driver and DTS function correctly when tested 
independently. We Will submit separate patches for the driver and DTS.

Regards,
Nitin




> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>